Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
Because sword-and-shield or sword-and-dagger utilize components that have distinct, different roles, and this distinction would likely be easier to remember in the stress of combat than the basic tenet of the two-sword style? (i.e. that each sword's role should be totally interchangeable with the other's) |
Interesting. If anything, I would have guessed that -once the skills has been aquired- using two swords would be easier, since they do the exact same thing anyway. ;) :p
Quote: |
Well, let me clarify, then: I was saying that I don't think you'll gain any particular advantage against a sword-and-shield opponent by using two swords instead of one--at least nothing beyond the dubious advantage of novelty. A more reliable approach to get a distinct advantage over the sword-and-shield man would be to train more intensively in whatever weapon you're already comfortable with--or to bring friends who'd be able to flank and mob him once you've tied him down in a frontal engagement. |
I think you misunderstand. I wasn't asking wether or not using two swords would give me an advantage over the sword-and-shield man. I was asking wether or not adding a sword would lessen my own disadvantage compared to using only one, provided that my skill with two swords is equal to my skill with one.
Wether or not I actually win isn't the priority here.
Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
And, of course, two identical weapons, like a pair of long swords, are plain redundant in most situations. A different weapon - dagger, axe, shield, whatever - in the off-hand opens up a whole new world of possible strategies and combinations, instead of just more of the same. It's kinda like how competent boxers throw quick, light jabs with the lead hand and slower but more powerful crosses with the other, rather than just the same old haymakers with both. And how all fighters, armed and unarmed, lead with one foot instead of standing square on to the opponent, at that... |
So, what's the difference? A boxers arms are still the same lenght, they both wear gloves... I don't see what you are getting at.
No one's ever said you can't employ different tactics with each sword, or that you have to use identical weapons.
Thomas Watt wrote: |
I think the strongest point against dual-wielding (original discussion assertion) is simply history.
|
Actually I consider this the weakest point. There are several reasons for why dual wielding was never historically popular. For your battlefield example, there's the simple fact that a sword and shield combo is simply better, not to mention a cheaper and simpler alternative.
In civilian life, there's fashion (because carrying two swords around makes you look stupid), the additional training required, the practical concerns of wearing and drawing double blades, etc, etc.
However, I don't think that automatically invalidates dual wielding as an effective fighting style under the right circumstances.